|
Post by stutefish on Feb 17, 2007 5:40:11 GMT -4
It's been my experience that "faith" and belief" are synonyms, and that what actually happens is that reason leads to a reasonable conclusion that a particular leap of faith is justified, and then that reason either validates or invalidates that justification after the leap is attempted and the results observed.
Of course, different people have different capacities for reason, such that rational justifications for faith may not be forthcoming from many believers. There are, however, in the case of Christianity at least, a great number of believers who are willing and able to discuss the rational basis for their faith at great length. Just as it is best to discuss the reasons for believing Apollo with someone who is quite rational in their belief, so too in the case of religion, I should think.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 19, 2007 18:56:52 GMT -4
I think I am going to have to change my mind on this one.
Is it really possible for a dozen people to eat one human body in one sitting? Or even in one day? Try eating one pound of meat in one sitting. It is almost impossible.
This sounds like a job for MythBusters!
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Feb 19, 2007 19:26:02 GMT -4
I tried a forty-two ounce steak once. Eating some of the trimmings pretty much blew my chance of finishing the meat: by the end, what was left was distinctly unappetising.
And not all of a human body equates to prime fillet
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 19, 2007 21:15:18 GMT -4
Yeah, like the bones.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 19, 2007 21:41:01 GMT -4
John 21:6 - And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat, and you will find a catch." They cast therefore, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish.
A fishing technique called "chumming" can be used to attract great numbers of fish to one spot. Everything that wasn't eaten in the ritual was thrown into the Sea of Galilee.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Feb 19, 2007 22:19:34 GMT -4
I thought of that. Using carpenters equipment that would have been available given the family profession they could have carved up the bones and hid them in robes. But human beings are not made for eating human beings like great cats, bears, wild dogs or sharks are. Anyone who has owned a pet dog or cat and takes the animal's care seriously learns that these carnivores are made for digesting the guts or innards of an animal. Human beings are omnivorous but they are still have digestions that better break down muscle meat. It would have been a chore to choke down the bile infested intestines of the body. I am guessing it would be hard for 12 people to eat one human body. So even with all the interesting speculation and literal interpretation of scripture, I am thinking that it still did not happen just because of the physics involved.
|
|
|
Post by Alliterative Andy on Feb 20, 2007 16:32:19 GMT -4
There are anecdotes of hunters, trappers, cowboys, etc., finishing off more than a few pounds of bear/cattle/bison/etc. in one sitting. While probably tall tales, they also most likely didn't eat most of the nasty stuff.
You should also consider that cleaned intestines are used to stuff meat and spices. Most, if not all, of the internal organs are traditional entrees in some customs. And bones can boiled to get the marrow out and then be ground and added to other foods (blech!).
But, traditional Jews are very picky about what they eat. So, I find it unlikely that they would have literally eaten him. I can't prove that they didn't, and there is no proof that they did; all we have is speculation on how his disciples interpreted the alleged words and actions of Christ Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 21, 2007 2:44:38 GMT -4
Continued from my post above: First off, DH, you're wrong on many counts here: The historical record in scripture has never been intelligently refuted. The very existence of Jesus has been disputed. Few of the facts of his life can be corroborated, and many of the supernatural events alleged to have taken place were variations of other stories from the Egyptian gods, Zoroastrianism, and various other religions and sects in the broader middle-east area. We can discuss the details of this later. I'm willing to accept that Yesu ben Yusuf of Nazareth really existed, and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Jewish authorities for various things we can sum up as "rabble rousing." I'm also willing to accept that his body was put into a tomb owned by a man called "Joseph of Arimathea." After this things get murky. Yeshu had attracted a following by the time of his death, and many pre-existing prophecies were attached to him, among them that he would return from the dead. I assert that the core members of the "jesus cult" removed the body and disposed of it, then spread the word that he had "appeared" to a select number of the inner membership. ... I did say intelligently refuted. There are quite a few references to Jesus outside of scripture--many more than the Josephus reference which is usually brought up. He's even mentioned in the Talmud, though insultingly. The apostles transformed from cowards to martyrs--willingly dying for the gospel when they could have saved their lives by recanting. There is a historical record of their deaths. This is considered very important as men don't give their lives for what they know to be a lie. Then there is the testimony of those who knew the apostles, and so on. This is a big topic all by itself and you can easily search out good information. You didn't say this, but one thing that keeps cropping up in these discussions is the belief that the Bible is one book. It's actually a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of centuries. (I sound like Chuck Missler..."it's an integrated message from beyond our time domain...") Something for everyone to keep in mind. So you think the disciples (Jesus cult) stole the Lord's body from the tomb? When do you think they did this? Why do you believe this?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 21, 2007 4:55:52 GMT -4
You didn't say this, but one thing that keeps cropping up in these discussions is the belief that the Bible is one book. It's actually a collection of 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of centuries. And then copied, with flaws introducing themselves into the texts over and over again for centuries. Which is, naturally, the big problem with the concept of Biblical infallibility.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 21, 2007 13:50:47 GMT -4
And then copied, with flaws introducing themselves into the texts over and over again for centuries. Which is, naturally, the big problem with the concept of Biblical infallibility. See, now this is a topic of growing interest to me. For many years I have assumed that this problem had been satisfactorily resolved, but I have never bothered to look into it very closely myself. More recently, though, especially as I've begun regular visits to here and BAUT, I've begun to think more deeply about my assumptions on this subject, and just how far reason can take me, before a leap of faith is necessary, and whether or not reason can take me far enough to justify that leap of faith. I think that reason-oriented, science-minded forums like this one would be an ideal place to discuss this. I can find plenty of mystical discussion groups already; the kind of group that meets here is entirely different--and, to my mind, no less important--but somewhat harder to find. Now, if this were BAUT, and I was feeling unusually testy, I might read Gillian's "[transcription errors are], naturally, the big problem with the concept of Biblical infallibility" as a claim--a claim against the mainstream of Biblical scholarship, even--and request that Gillian support the claim, perhaps by answering some or all of the following questions: What evidence is there that the scribes in question were unaware of the risks of transcription errors? What evidence is there that the scribes did not take steps to mitigate the risk of transcription errors? What evidence is there that, in the absence of modern error-checking technology, the scribes did not proceed to devise other error-checking techniques capable of producing texts substantially as reliable to the texts produced using the modern methods we rely on today? How far apart, in time, are the most recent and most ancient texts of the same biblical passage? What is the error rate between these two texts? Of the texts used by mainstream biblical scholars to produce "correct' versions of the Bible, what amount of conflict between texts could be considered "spelling and punctuation" errors, and what amount of conflicts consist of actual conflicts in reporting of events, and what amount consist of actual conflicts in interpretation or instruction of the "correct" Biblical principles? Are modern Biblical scholars aware of the risk of transcription and translation and interpretation errors in the texts they study and promote? Have modern Biblical scholars taken steps to mitigate these errors? If so, what steps have they taken? How effective are these perceived to be, by the scholars themselves? How effective are these steps perceived to be by other similar scholars not involved in Biblical scholarship? Have any apparently intelligent and rational people ever given their reasons for accepting the Biblical narrative as substantially accurate? Or is it only apparently foolish and irrational people who have attempted to justify their beliefs? If rational people have attempted to justify their beliefs, what of their attempts? Do they seem more like the attempts of scientists, engineers, and competent scholars? Or do these attempts seem more like the attempts made by crackpots? Aside from their allegedly irrational belief in the mainstream Biblical narrative, do these apologists show any other signs of irrationality in their thoughts or actions? Now, this is not BAUT, and I am not actually challenging Gillian to defend such a claim by answering these questions or any others. I am, however, curious to know if Gillian--or anyone else on this board--has given much serious thought to these questions, and whether or not their conclusions about Biblical infallibility or the rationality of the Christian faith have been reached with the same exciting and interesting scientific rigor that most of us here seem to appreciate so much in discussing Apollo, etc. I also acknowledge that it is incumbent on me to do my own homework and to answer these questions for myself, to my own rational satisfaction. What say you, Gillian?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 21, 2007 14:05:43 GMT -4
I say it sounds like you should move this post to a new thread and start a new discussion. Something like "Biblical Textual Criticism" is probably appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 21, 2007 15:42:08 GMT -4
Recently, I read the book Misquoting Jesus, which gives quite a few of those details. However, I do own several books about the Bible, in addition, to two different copies, and I did quite a lot of study of religion before deciding what my own was. Even examining several different modern texts of the Bible will give several passages that are wildly different, and most current texts are compiled comparing a half-dozen or more different translations.
I have a great deal of experience with the difference between "what I meant to say" and "what I actually said." This is why, for example, I never proofread my own work prior to publication. I ask someone else to do it, because the odds are far better that they'll catch that kind of error.
In addition, modern Biblical scholars can determine something of the history of a fragmentary copy of the Bible by looking for certain transcription errors propagated within it.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Feb 22, 2007 11:54:13 GMT -4
I may have a sick sense of humor, because I found it funny. Seriously!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Feb 22, 2007 23:46:32 GMT -4
Grand Lunar said: I may have a sick sense of humor, because I found it funny. Seriously!
Welcome to the club. I brought the topic up in jest in another thread, and Bill, known around here as a rather warped joker (also known as the Sofa King, Red Hearted one) started this thread to -uh- dissect the topic.
DeadHoosiers said: (more seriously) So you think the disciples (Jesus cult) stole the Lord's body from the tomb? When do you think they did this? Why do you believe this?
I'll answer your questions backwards. I believe this because I believe in humans with human motivation, not in ghosts. I reject all claims of supernatural events. Everything has a rational explanation. Nobody talks to God. He's too busy with his Plate Tectonics homework to answer our petty "daddy, gimme" prayers. He way know when every sparrow falls, but does he care one way or the other? I doubt it, looking at the history of human tragedy.
I believe the Jesus Cultists stole the body sometime after midnight on the Sabbath, probably just a few hours before Mary (and Mary, or not) went to annoit the body with herbs. According to Matthew, guards were posted to prevent such a thing from happening.
I think eventually the Roman soldiers left, figuring they were on a fools errand, and besides, it's the Sabbath, Jews wouldn't move the rock.
Imagine the scene. Boredom, stomping of sandals, blowing on cold fingers, cussing in Roman, mad that they were so far from home and everything else, and besides, they were doing this for the Pharisees anyway, so what do they care? Lower level enlisted men never understand the politics behind their orders, they just want to stay warm and drunk until it's time to march home again. Some things never change.
Meanwhile, the apostles had a vested interest (in many ways) of the prophecy of resurrection. They had a lot of emotions on the line, and followers, and they were committed true believers, faithful followers of their priest and leader, Yeshu ben Yusuf of Nazareth, a member of the baptismal cult of John the Baptist, and one of the many wandering revolutionaries preaching to a following, competing to be the Jewish Messiah.
At this point I'm going to bring up the subject of "scope" for the research. I'll use the Bible, obviously, but I'm pretty busy so I don't want to go into the literature about the Bible a whole lot. The words of the primary text should stand on their own, if this is the Word of God.
On the other hand, I might look into the Apocrypha a bit - some of the written works that didn't "make the cut" editorially over the centuries. I was reading a book on it recently (like eating drywall - without salt) and the author opined that the reason many of the written works known as "apocrypha" weren't included, is that they're badly written, redundant, and in his opinion are really not worth translating. So he provided summaries only of the worst offenders.
More later.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 23, 2007 4:18:18 GMT -4
. . . cussing in Roman . . . . Latin, surely.
|
|